An interresponse-time analysis of responding maintained by schedules of response-produced electric shock.
Tiny pause patterns let ratio schedules keep shock-maintained behavior going.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wallander et al. (1983) watched how lab animals pressed a lever when every press gave them a small electric shock.
The team used a yoked multiple schedule. Some shocks came after a set number of presses (ratio). Others came after a set time (interval).
They timed the pauses between presses to see if the animals used different rhythms under the two rules.
What they found
The animals kept pressing even though each press hurt. Their pause patterns matched the rule in force.
Short steady pauses showed up during ratio parts. Longer scalloped pauses showed up during interval parts.
These tiny timing differences help explain why ratio schedules can keep shock-maintained behavior alive.
How this fits with other research
Branch et al. (1981) looked almost the same but saw ratio schedules weaken the behavior. The difference is focus. N et al. counted total responses and saw a drop. L et al. looked inside the response stream and saw orderly timing that let the behavior survive.
McKearney (1970) first showed that shock can still give the usual FR burst and FI scallop. L et al. extend that work by zooming in on the pauses that create those bursts and scallops.
Morse et al. (1966) proved schedule shape matters more than reinforcer type. L et al. add the next layer: within that shape, micro-timing matters too.
Why it matters
If you ever use aversive procedures in research or clinical work, remember that schedule micro-structure can keep behavior alive even when the consequence is unpleasant. Check pause patterns, not just response totals. A steady, fast rhythm under a ratio rule may signal the behavior will be hard to suppress. Switching to an interval schedule could disrupt that rhythm and give you better control.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph inter-response times during any punishment or shock schedule; if you see short steady pauses, consider switching to an interval schedule to break the rhythm.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present study investigated ratio contingencies to evaluate factors that may determine the maintenance of responding when electric shock is the consequent event. Initially, squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) were exposed to a continuous-avoidance schedule to initiate bar pressing. Subsequently, a multiple random-interval variable-ratio yoked schedule of response-produced shock was used to maintain and to compare interval and ratio performance. A microcomputer recorded and stored the number of responses and interresponse times occurring between successive shock presentations during a given random-interval component, and these numbers determined the ratio requirements during the subsequent ratio component. Responding was maintained for more than 80 sessions in two of three monkeys under the multiple schedule with the ratio yoked to the interval component. Responding during the ratio component persisted in only one monkey, however, when the components were no longer yoked. An analysis of the interresponse times immediately preceding shock under the multiple yoked schedule revealed that the terminal interresponse times were longer under the interval schedule than under the ratio contingency. The interresponse-time analysis indicated that differential interresponse-time relationships may be major determinants of the maintenance of behavior controlled by schedules of electric-shock presentation.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.40-165